update_item_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses irreversibility for items with sales, the confirm=true prerequisite, the reversibility of pause, and that a closed item requires a new listing. It even states the return payload (item id + new status), which is uncommon and useful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The warning and confirm requirement are front-loaded and the sentences are dense with useful information, but the reversible/pause-and-reactivate point is stated twice (once in the action list, once in the follow-up sentence), a minor redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the destructive path, the confirmation prerequisite, reversibility per action, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each enum value and the confirm flag. The description still adds value by framing confirm as an explicit refusal gate and by tying each action to its reversibility consequence, though much of the enum wording is duplicated rather than extended.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('change the visibility status of a listing') and enumerates the three discrete actions with their effects, which no sibling tool (e.g. update_item, create_item) claims. An agent can immediately tell this is the state-transition tool rather than an edit tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives per-action selection guidance ('pause' hides, 'activate' re-publishes, 'close' finishes) plus an explicit gating rule ('close' is refused unless confirm=true) and a workflow instruction to confirm with the user first. There is no ambiguity about which action to pick for which intent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.